Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 13-00015-BAJ-RLB
02-21-2014
MICHAEL HAMPTON (#334976) v. WARDEN BURL CAIN, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
On January 31, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that Plaintiff Michael Hampton's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) be denied and that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) be granted, dismissing Plaintiff's claims asserted against the Defendants, with prejudice; that Plaintiff's pending motions for injunctive relief and mandamus relief (Docs. 63, 78, and 80) be denied and that Plaintiff's action be dismissed; and that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction in connection with Plaintiff's claims arising under state law. (Doc. 87.)
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation specifically notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen (14) days from the date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc. 87, at 1.) A review of the record indicates that neither party has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Having carefully considered the Magistrate Judge's Report, the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report is correct, and hereby adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 87) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael Hampton's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is DENIED, and that the Defendants' Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) is GRANTED, dismissing Plaintiff's claims asserted against the Defendants, with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary/Preventive Injunction (Doc. 63) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion/Application for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 78) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Preliminary Injunction and also a Restraining Order against Defendant[s] in Accordance with FRCP Rule 65 (a),(b),(1),(3); and Also Ti[t]le 18 Section 3626 (a),(2); AD Testificandum (sic) (Doc. 80) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned matter is DISMISSED, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 21st day of February, 2014.
__________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA